Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 05.08:
> On Feb 1, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Sam Ruby 2009-02-02 02.20:
>>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>> Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30:
>>>>> -public-html
>>>>> +www-archive
>>>>>> I see a "strawman".
>>>>> Sorry, that's not a strawman either.  Maciej was just pointing that 
>>>>> the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one small part.
>>>> You (and Majiej) make it sound as if there is any difference between 
>>>> saying
>>>>    "I disagree in point x."
>>>> and
>>>>    "I agree, except in point x."
>>> My guidance was inconsistent.  "give each other the benefit of the 
>>> doubt" vs. "call them out when you see them".  I'd suggest we would 
>>> all benefit from giving the former a bit more weight than the latter.
>> I subscribe to this.
>>> One thing that may also not be clear here: "I think it is helpful to 
>>> the group to see people coming to agreement" is a making a subtle 
>>> point that Maciej sees "coming to an agreement" a subclass worth 
>>> distinguishing from "if you agree".
>>> And, you know what?  I tend to agree.
>> It might be that I not fully have grasped the fullness of things you 
>> two have disagreed about, and so I was not able to appreciate enough 
>> that you two come together on all other points. I of course appreciate 
>> that you are coming together.
>> However, I have not, unlike Maciej, expressed disagreement in the 
>> particular point that he did express it on. And unlike Lachlan I do 
>> not consider this point a minor one either. On the contrary, if there 
>> is one thing I think particular important, then it is that there are 
>> quite fixed and orderly rules for how to raise issues. And I therefore 
>> was very happy to see you suggest such formalias. I would consider the 
>> vagueness that Maciej suggested instead as only more of the same 
>> situation as we have today. (Besides, if I remember, you allowed for 
>> some judgement even in your rule - it was not just "count 3 person and 
>> go".)
>> This has been a problem in the past. There were many issues that were 
>> raised, but thenafter closed. The main problem in this was not the 
>> fact that they were closed (which were discouraging enough though) but 
>> the fact that there were no fixed rules for how to go forward with 
>> what what cared for. It is much more easy to accept that one looses an 
>> issue if one know the rules, and can say that one tried to follow them 
>> and yet still lost.
>> Many things have been tried: the Wiki, the issue tracker - and other 
>> things. I am not the one that have tried the hardest, I do not fully 
>> grasp all the rules and "institutions" for our group - so I am not the 
>> one to explain it best. But I have been with others who tried to raise 
>> issues, and have seen their wikipages been deleted, their issues in 
>> the tracker not being accepted and so on. Hence rules to calculate 
>> with is needed. (I only speak for myself, however, I do not guarantee 
>> if others think the rules you proposed are good enough.)
>> Hence I felt it important to say that Maciej was stating disagreement. 
>> He only gave the reason "much work" for not having that rule, so his 
>> opposition might not be too strong. Here is hoping that it is so.
>> Your letter was a much appreciated step in the right direction. I am 
>> glad to agree with Maciej in that.
> Hi Leif,
> If you think that Sam's proposal to record all open issues in the spec 
> itself is a good one, then in my opinion you should argue in its favor, 
> and do that on public-html. But (incorrectly) accusing people of making 
> strawman arguments doesn't do anything to promote your case. What you 
> wrote above would have been a much better reply to my original email 
> than what I said.

Ok, Maciej, thank you for saying so. If Sam think it would be 
right to continue the debate [he asked us to not debate on the 
list], I can certainly send about the same thing to the list - 
unless it has moved to another subject by then. I hope that we get 
good rules and moves from a dysfunctional group to a more 
functional one. That is most important to me. For anything that 
might have disfocused that goal, I'm sorry.

Leif Halvard Silli

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 06:01:01 UTC